Late Summer Musings …

                                Late Summer Musings …

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 8/26/18

            About our Catholic friends. No, the Catholic Church is not down and out because of the recent accounts about priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals who have allegedly committed dreadful sins.  Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, a devout Catholic and a conservative commentator, and Mark Thiessen, former speech writer for President George W. Bush, are being too dire in regard to what the sexual abuse scandal is doing to the church at large.  They foresee a weakened church.

  What percentage of Catholic priests do you suppose has engaged in sexual misconduct?  What percentage of the Cardinals has overlooked it?  I believe I could guarantee that the percentage of misbehaving protestant pastors is much higher, yet nobody is declaring that Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. are finished.

            In the seven Baptist churches of which I have been a member, three of the pastors are strong, faithful men who finished well and are in heaven.  Four are still serving God and practicing what they preach.  I’ve no doubt that they too will finish well. Protestant ministers, because of sexual sins, have been falling like flies all of my life.  This says nothing about the seven pastors I’ve had, and others I know from other denominations.  It is, however, a serious reminder of how ministers and everybody else had better guard their hearts.

             Catholics and I disagree on many things, but not on the deity of Christ.  I bristle at how the media are pointing their fingers at Catholics.  Catholics have been at the front of the pro-life movement.  Like evangelicals, they build schools, hospitals, orphanages, and prison ministries.  They are the largest religious group in America.  Expect the media to beat up on them for another three weeks or so until something else negative pops up.

            About the Governor’s race.  Knowing Brian Kemp, I suspect his campaign handlers had to persuade him to do those television gun commercials, not because of the gun or the message, but because he knows the whole thing was hokey politicking.  Kemp’s not into hokey, contrived things.  He’s a slow talking, serious guy who thinks before he speaks and prefers straightforward communication.  But hokey sometimes wins the day and did in the Republican primary as it did when Sonny Purdue’s campaign dubbed Governor Roy Barnes “King Roy,” the giant rat. Watch, though, as the former state senator and secretary of state sets forth his vision for the state in the next two months.  It will not be hokey.

            Knowing Stacey Abrams, I still say Mr. Kemp needs to be at his best.  The nice, well spoken Ms. Abrams can formulate and deliver a clear, unambiguous compound sentence before a debate opponent can clear his throat.  Never has there been a better display of red versus blue than in this race, but never has there been a larger band of purple that can be swayed either way.  Yes, in Georgia.  Remember that Cobb County, Newt country, went for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

            Probably never before have the philosophical lines been more clearly drawn than in this race.  Abrams is an unapologetic Clintonista; Kemp, an equally unapologetic Trumpster.  This race is George Orwell’s Big Brother versus Calvin Coolidge’s limited government.  It is socialism versus federalism.  If, during debates, there is any degree of backing away from the candidate’s base in order to woo purple voters, it will be Abrams who does so.  Kemp will not budge.

            About the President and the media.  I’m sorry, but President Trump’s fighting back with the media is doing my heart good.  Anyone old enough to look back and survey the media’s recent history knows that Presidents Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama were the media’s darlings, all Democrats.  Not so with Democrats Johnson and Carter.  Hmmm, was Johnson too much barbeque and Carter too much peanuts?  Probably.  But Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes, all Republicans, were nipped at constantly by the networks and the nation’s largest newspapers.  

            Except for sending out his vice-president to label the media “nattering nabobs of negativism,” Nixon did little other than fume.  Reagan resisted, successfully, with his humor.  The Bushes, gentlemen both, endured it.  But Trump isn’t willing to take it.  Little wonder.  Nipping has been turned into resistance and outright attack, with such verbal lobs as “treasonous,” “mentally disabled,”  “traitorous,” “racist,” and much more.

            The media has hidden behind the 1^st Amendment long enough.  “Free press” doesn’t mean that the press cannot be criticized.  Objective journalism and commentary have turned into carping.  May the President’s bold response to it continue.

Roger Hines

8/21/18      

           

Postmodernism and What Lies Beyond It

                     Postmodernism and What Lies Beyond It

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 8/19/18

            If the ancient Greeks were man thinking and the Romans were man doing, then we Americans are far more Roman than Greek.  A frontier people, we started out by clearing a path and using the wood to build minimal shelters.  The name of the game wasn’t “What is man?” or “What is truth?”  It was “Where shall we find our supper?”

            But Americans are Greek as well.  We’re capable of questioning and pursuing thought about non-material things.  Freedom and representative democracy are non-material concepts and we prize them highly.  Let us embrace, then, the term “Greco-Roman” and acknowledge that both of those ancient traditions have not simply influenced, but shaped us. 

            Also participant in our formation and in the continuance of what we call American values, the Judeo-Christian ethic has landed more deeply into the American psyche than has all the thought of Greece and Rome combined.  If the foundational American ethic didn’t come from Moses and Jesus, from whom did it come? 

The Roman in us doesn’t care much for philosophy.  It wants to get outside and build something.  But the Greek in us does, and the Greeks were right: all that we think and say has philosophical underpinnings.    

            One of the most puzzling and depressing philosophical terms used today is the term “postmodernism.”  Ever wondered what happened to church steeples or why school buildings are so flat and lacking in personality?  Why our dress no longer bespeaks respect or pride?  Why self-esteem replaced self-denial?  Philosophy did it.  Philosophy precedes and surrounds everything we adopt or do.  Current beliefs and the practices that flow from them and influence politics, education, religion and even architecture can no longer be called modern.  They are postmodern.  The modern 20^th century, America’s century, is gone.

            According to most historians, the early modern world began with the Industrial Revolution.  Machines and automation changed us, but not our basic beliefs about God and man.  Fast cars, fast living, and television didn’t diminish faith. Not until the late 20^th century, that is.  So different is our nation from 1960 that a new label is necessary.  That label is postmodernism.

            At the heart of postmodernism lie abandonment, deconstruction, and death: abandonment of stability and social structures such as the nuclear family and deconstruction of definitions such as those of truth, marriage, and even gender.  In churches we’ve seen the death of icons.  Who needs to see crosses anymore?  Give us drums.  In schools, joy is absent.  Success is shown by data.  All things are measurable.  Test those kids!  Forget the joy.  In architecture, it’s functionality only and the absence of ornament.  Give us stark, angular buildings and outrageous design.

            Our literature is postmodern as well. It has turned inward and introspective.  If Ernest Hemingway’s characters were troubled, at least they were trying to figure the world out.  Contemporary, postmodern authors and movie makers present characters who are beyond redemption and hope.  Instead of heroes, we’re given anti-heroes. 

            In postmodernism, everything is relative.  All things are based on perception.  Instead of truth, it’s “my truth” and “your truth.”  Instead of male and female, it’s “whatever gender you identify with.”  (I learned this personally by visiting the local Target store to ask about their bathroom use policy.)  The question is no longer “Where does the truth lie?”  It’s “How do you feel?”

As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man, “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.”   Enthroning multiculturalism, we are deserting faith in ideas, values, and norms of our own Western culture, that is, Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian culture.  Instead of progressing toward once universal goals such as justice, knowledge, and freedom, we now advance “inclusion,” arguing that all ideas are created equal.

Even the word “media” has fallen to postmodernism.  It actually means “between us,” implying the objective connecting of the public to something else.  The media itself is now the something else.  CNN doesn’t give the news.  Its reporters and commentators are the news.

Christopher Butler of Oxford University believes postmodernism is dying.  Men without chests can simply grow tired and weary, longing once again for an age that had a spiritual element and meaning.  We should hope Butler is right.  America’s half-century of postmodernism has produced more suicides than any other period on record.

Man can stand the loss of almost anything except the loss of meaning.  Perhaps beyond postmodernism lies hope and beauty that all of us are still capable of recognizing and desiring.

            Just some thoughts.  With our kids and grandkids in mind.

Roger Hines

8/14/18

Georgia Republicans, Beware

                         Georgia Republicans, Beware

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 8/12/18                                  

Ten springs ago writer Selena Montgomery came to my English class at Chattahoochee Technical College to talk about writing.  Her visit was a rousing success for herself and the class as well.   

            Montgomery and I had met in Atlanta just months before at the state Capitol.  We learned that we had similar backgrounds and interests.  She was a writer, a lawyer, and a state representative.  I was a former state representative and a teacher, though at the time, I was working for the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives.

            It would be inaccurate to say we had become close friends.  Our conversations were actually rare, though generally lengthy.  Of different races, we grew to respect each other even though we realized right away that we were on different sides of the political fence, in name and in philosophy.  Montgomery was a Democrat; I was a Republican.  I had been educated in Mississippi.  She, too, grew up in Mississippi and went on to obtain her law degree from Yale Law School.

            Standing before my English Composition class, this lady was spellbinding.  She said something; she paused.  She looked around; she then landed her eyes on the students right beneath her speaker’s stand.  She was an intense listener.  She was winsome.  I sensed that her outstanding communication skills were natural gifts.  The ease and authority with which she spoke were not practiced.

            As is the case in many technical colleges, the age difference among the students in the college freshman class was vast.  The majority of the class were 18 and 19, but a good third of the students were in their late twenties and thirties.  The two oldest class members were in their 50s.  Ms. Montgomery acknowledged this age difference as she spoke about the art of writing, adeptly asking questions and using illustrations that applied to younger adults and then to the older ones.

            “We talk more than we write,” she asserted, “but learning to write well will definitely heighten your thinking and your spoken English.  Think about that the next time you’re having an interview, trying to get a date, or trying to get your kids to move closer to you so that you can see the grandkids more often.”

            Having already taught English for 42 years, I watched and listened with amazement as this young woman skillfully stated what she had to say. I was learning from her.  I was also very pleased with myself for having invited her to the class.

            At the Capitol on the House Floor, Montgomery was known as Stacey Abrams.  Already an author, using the pen name Selena Montgomery, Abrams rose fast in the Georgia House. Eventually, she became House Minority Leader.  Her speeches in the House were as lucid as her stellar teaching in my classroom.  She is now the Democratic nominee for Governor.

            Lately, media pundits have been claiming that Americans are divided because they are “defined by their ideology.”  But how can we not be so defined?  Why should we not be?  If ideology is one’s set of beliefs, what else best “defines” us?

            Perhaps the pundits need Ms. Abrams to help them with better word choices.  As most people are (pundits as well), Abrams is guided by a set of beliefs.  Maybe the pundits are trying to say we are not respectful of those whose ideology is different from our own.

            Ms. Abrams’ ideology is clear. It is, I believe, the reason she will not be elected Governor.  She has vowed to protect abortion rights and has received recognition from Planned Parenthood.  She supports “marriage equality” and expansion of gun regulation.  She believes in ending the death penalty.  She has opposed both religious liberty legislation and the strengthening of voter ID laws.  Already she is the darling of progressives across the country.

            As talented and sincere as Abrams is, she still is not likely to find that most Georgia voters share her ideology.  Republicans best be careful, however.  The likeability factor always looms big in politics, and Ms. Abrams is likeable.  Unlike many progressives, she is eloquent without being rabid.

            I haven’t read any of Selena Montgomery’s books.  Reviewers call them romantic suspense novels.  Their covers indicate that they are pure erotica.  I hope not.  Stacey Abrams has too much to offer to be titillating readers with lurid novels.

            If she loses the Governor’s race, I hope she teaches English.  She would rise there as well.  Meanwhile, Republicans have a formidable foe.  There is much they could learn from her.

Roger Hines

8/8/18

           

                           

Cobb County and Noblesse Oblige … Say What?

             Cobb County and Noblesse Oblige … Say What?

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 8/5/18   

            I’ve never had a day of French, but I can count to ten in Italian, thanks to a war bride sister-in-law.  One year of German in college equipped me to understand President Kennedy when he said to the Germans, “Ich bin ein Berliner” (I am a Berliner), but that’s about the extent of my German.

             My daughter Christy, who took four years of Latin at North Cobb High School, has supplied me with Latin word knowledge from time to time.  Daughter Wendy took four years of French at North Cobb High as well.  Sons Jeff and Reagan took Spanish for two years and four years, respectively, at Harrison High School.

I should therefore be more adept with foreign languages, but sometimes in life you just have to depend on others to help you through.  At any rate, the only language I know and do love is a deep well from which to draw.  It‘s also the language of the world.

We all have favorite phrases from non-English languages.  Latin’s “e pluribus unum,” (out of many, one), still describes America, our current immigration debate notwithstanding.  I love the Latin “virtue et armis,” (by virtue and arms), the motto of my home state.  In the simplest of terms it means be nice but keep your powder dry.

 Another interesting non-English term is “noblesse oblige”.  It’s French, but I can make out “nobles” and “obligation.”

Let’s see.  A noble is a rich guy, normally a land owner, but always a man of means and influence.  An obligation is a responsibility.  The phrase implies that nobles bear a responsibility of some kind.  But to whom and according to whom? 

How such an obligation originated is a topic within itself, but suffice it to say that historically “noblesse oblige” has meant the obligation of high ranking persons to behave honorably toward those of lesser rank, to set standards of grace.   I know of two places where this social expectation has been borne well: my home town and Cobb County, Georgia.

One of my 10 brothers-in-law, a true country man of character named Everett, painted the homes of practically all of the “nobles” of Forest, MS.  A teenager at the time, I occasionally helped my brother-in-law with paint jobs.  One of those “nobles” was the future Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court.  One morning as we were preparing the tools of the trade at this prominent lawyer’s home, the lawyer’s wife yelled out the back door, “Everett, ya’ll come in for some coffee before you get started.”

Feeling like a Charles Dickens urchin, I followed Everett into the palatial house we were about to paint.  I could tell that for Everett it was no significant moment, but to me, sitting down to fine china cups and saucers and the high-pitched clinking therefrom was most intimidating.  But my intimidation was unnecessary.  This noble couple’s hospitality wasn’t really an obligation.  It was their heart and their way.  And it was typical of the business, political, and community leaders of my home town.  Their obvious obligation was to be themselves and to think of others.

Unlike in many other locales, Cobb County citizens have been blessed for decades with such leadership.  Occasional exceptions aside, this county’s leaders have shown common touch servant leadership.  In large part, Cobb County is the American ideal in miniature.  Different income levels, different races, but no big shots, and a community spirit that thrives.

Within the last two years I have been privileged to be a guest Sunday School teacher at one of Marietta’s largest, most historic Methodist churches.  Both times the room was filled with Marietta and Cobb County community leaders, including political leaders of both parties.  Their camaraderie was memorable, their love and concern for each other exemplary, their social status irrelevant.  No doubt the same is true of many other congregations in our county.

For three years I worked for a wealthy friend and Cobb businessman.  My job was to assist him in research for giving money away.  My friend practiced noblesse oblige.  Not a government requirement, actually not a requirement of any kind.  Just a spirit of selfless nobility.

It is this very spirit that astounded Frenchman Crevecoeur when he came to write about our newfound nation.  “Kings, queens, dukes, and duchesses will not fare well in the New World,” he opined.

Happily, it’s not just good nobles who accept the obligation of showing class and grace.  My father, a country man extraordinaire, was prone to respond to any deed of kindness with the words, “I’m much obliged.”

Roger Hines

8/1/18

Cobb County and Noblesse Oblige … Say What?

             Cobb County and Noblesse Oblige … Say What?

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 8/5/18  

            I’ve never had a day of French, but I can count to ten in Italian, thanks to a war bride sister-in-law.  One year of German in college equipped me to understand President Kennedy when he said to the Germans, “Ich bin ein Berliner” (I am a Berliner), but that’s about the extent of my German.

             My daughter Christy, who took four years of Latin at North Cobb High School, has supplied me with Latin word knowledge from time to time.  Daughter Wendy took four years of French at North Cobb High as well.  Sons Jeff and Reagan took Spanish for two years and four years, respectively, at Harrison High School.

I should therefore be more adept with foreign languages, but sometimes in life you just have to depend on others to help you through.  At any rate, the only language I know and do love is a deep well from which to draw.  It‘s also the language of the world.

We all have favorite phrases from non-English languages.  Latin’s “e pluribus unum,” (out of many, one), still describes America, our current immigration debate notwithstanding.  I love the Latin “virtue et armis,” (by virtue and arms), the motto of my home state.  In the simplest of terms it means be nice but keep your powder dry.

 Another interesting non-English term is “noblesse oblige”.  It’s French, but I can make out “nobles” and “obligation.”

Let’s see.  A noble is a rich guy, normally a land owner, but always a man of means and influence.  An obligation is a responsibility.  The phrase implies that nobles bear a responsibility of some kind.  But to whom and according to whom? 

How such an obligation originated is a topic within itself, but suffice it to say that historically “noblesse oblige” has meant the obligation of high ranking persons to behave honorably toward those of lesser rank, to set standards of grace.   I know of two places where this social expectation has been borne well: my home town and Cobb County, Georgia.

One of my 10 brothers-in-law, a true country man of character named Everett, painted the homes of practically all of the “nobles” of Forest, MS.  A teenager at the time, I occasionally helped my brother-in-law with paint jobs.  One of those “nobles” was the future Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court.  One morning as we were preparing the tools of the trade at this prominent lawyer’s home, the lawyer’s wife yelled out the back door, “Everett, ya’ll come in for some coffee before you get started.”

Feeling like a Charles Dickens urchin, I followed Everett into the palatial house we were about to paint.  I could tell that for Everett it was no significant moment, but to me, sitting down to fine china cups and saucers and the high-pitched clinking therefrom was most intimidating.  But my intimidation was unnecessary.  This noble couple’s hospitality wasn’t really an obligation.  It was their heart and their way.  And it was typical of the business, political, and community leaders of my home town.  Their obvious obligation was to be themselves and to think of others.

Unlike in many other locales, Cobb County citizens have been blessed for decades with such leadership.  Occasional exceptions aside, this county’s leaders have shown common touch servant leadership.  In large part, Cobb County is the American ideal in miniature.  Different income levels, different races, but no big shots, and a community spirit that thrives.

Within the last two years I have been privileged to be a guest Sunday School teacher at one of Marietta’s largest, most historic Methodist churches.  Both times the room was filled with Marietta and Cobb County community leaders, including political leaders of both parties.  Their camaraderie was memorable, their love and concern for each other exemplary, their social status irrelevant.  No doubt the same is true of many other congregations in our county.

For three years I worked for a wealthy friend and Cobb businessman.  My job was to assist him in research for giving money away.  My friend practiced noblesse oblige.  Not a government requirement, actually not a requirement of any kind.  Just a spirit of selfless nobility.

It is this very spirit that astounded Frenchman Crevecoeur when he came to write about our newfound nation.  “Kings, queens, dukes, and duchesses will not fare well in the New World,” he opined.

Happily, it’s not just good nobles who accept the obligation of showing class and grace.  My father, a country man extraordinaire, was prone to respond to any deed of kindness with the words, “I’m much obliged.”

Roger Hines

8/1/18

Higher Education? Higher than What?

                    Higher Education? Higher than What?

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 7/29/18

            The American university is beset with problems.  You wouldn’t know it by looking at its resplendent buildings, lawns, labs, and endowment. Sadly ironic, it isn’t the university that suffers from the problems; it’s the public that funds it.

            Before highlighting some of higher education’s shortcomings, let’s be fair.  Centuries hence, it will be said of Americans, “They tried to educate everybody.  They advanced literacy and became a world power in less than two centuries of existence.  Instead of letting poverty slide, they attacked it governmentally and privately.”

            Americans are still performing these tasks, and higher education has played an important role in them.  However, we have elevated the university to a status it doesn’t deserve.  In doing so we have forgotten that much of America’s greatness was brought about by private, non-degreed individuals who took advantage of our free enterprise system and either started a business, invented something, floated an idea, or built a non-profit organization that alleviated  suffering.  For every college graduate, there are thousands of non-college graduates who pursued a dream and positively affected other people’s lives.

            What are some problems the university has heaped on us?  One is the big lie that one’s success or failure depends on whether or not we avail ourselves of the university’s offerings.  The university holds over the public an aura of self-importance.  “You need me but you must pay the price,” it chortles.  “I am the standard bearer of all things intellectual,” it beams.

            Hogwash!  Let’s take these last two claims one at a time.  Standard bearer of all things intellectual?  Then how do we explain Eric Hoffer, the “uneducated” San Francisco longshoreman who wrote books such as “The Ordeal of Change” in which he illustrated that knowledge can be had and communicated without a university education?  Hoffer was no outlier.  Like many others, he educated both his head and hands, though not with a university degree.

            Suffice it to say it’s time to rethink higher education.  Time to break loose from its grip and acknowledge that the university is adrift.  It is adrift practically and ideologically.

            Practically, the college degree has run into the law of diminishing returns.  The Center for College Affordability and Productivity reports that the earning differential between high school and college graduates fell from $32,900 in 2000 to $29,867 in 2015.  Those who are going to college for money, instead of for expanding their general knowledge, might be better off avoiding college.

            As for ideological drift, Penn State law professor Amy Wax made the mistake of authoring an article in which she called for the re-instatement of the “cultural script” that prevailed in the 1950s.  In Wax’s words, the “cultural script” or norm for the 50s was “Marry before you have children, strive to stay married, get enough schooling to get employment, work hard, and avoid drugs and crime.”

            Professor Wax’s department colleagues and the law school dean hit the ceiling.  Said Dean Ted Ruger, “As an educator I reject emphatically that any single cultural tradition is better than all others.”

             What?  Constitutionalism – the bedrock of our political tradition – isn’t any better than dictatorships?  Religious freedom is no better than a church state as in Iran where religion and state are inexorably linked?  A unified nuclear family is not preferable over a single-parent culture?

            Let’s give the Dean this: he accurately represented the mindset of the university, particularly its passion for cultural equivalency, inclusivity, and total tolerance of all cultures.  Should someone seek out his opinion of cannibalism and female genital mutilation?

            The university bids us to keep an open mind about all things.  But writer Ravi Zacharias says, “An open mind is like an open mouth.  Sooner or later it must close on something, else it will accept everything, reject nothing, and become an open sewer.”

            Today’s reigning ideology is that of the university, certainly not that of hearth and home.  Today we are to believe that any style of family will do, which is actually a stupid notion since everybody knows that everybody has a mother and a father.  “Higher” typically means better, but is it better to neglect or demean manual skills and point all youths to the university?

            Today the 1950s norms are precisely what America needs.  No, no, not racial segregation, but marrying before having children, staying married, working hard, and avoiding wrong and unwise behavior.  The fact that a law professor was ostracized for saying so is absolutely depressing and scary.

Roger Hines

7/25/18      

The Big Turn: Hysteria in the Time of Trump

                The Big Turn: Hysteria in the Time of Trump

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 7/22/18

            The Big Turn begs for comment.  It occurred only recently, not because of any change of heart, but solely because of animosity for one individual, our current president.

            This dramatic turn was taken by the nation’s political Left.  For decades the Left, meaning Democrats, socialists, and the mainstream media, played footsie with the Soviet Union.  In fact, from its origin in 1917 to its demise in 1991 and beyond, the Soviet Union (now Russia) has enjoyed the affection of the American Left.

            There is something about socialism/communism/collectivism that woos those who are left of center.  Leftists simply believe in governmental activism and power.  Government is their chief tool for achieving social/political goals, not persuasion or even community action.  Believing that we all should like big government, they have no qualms about forcing others to accept their views.  Leftists just don’t trust the individual.  They yearn for Old Europe statism.

            Rightists are the opposite.  Like America’s intrepid forebears who conquered woods and terrain, they are deeply devoted to individualism.  Just grant me freedom, thank you, and I’ll take care of myself, they argue.  But no, you need the village and you must accept and live by what the village wants, argues the leftist.  Of course the village likes to tax and spend, limit individualism, and rush to the courts and the streets when things don’t go its way.

            No wonder that during the Cold War, Democrats were accused of being “soft on communism.”  The lingo of the Cold War years was “hawks” and “doves.”  Hawks favored a strong stance against the Soviets.  Doves were Soviet sympathizers.  Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington State was one of the few Democrats who argued for standing up to the ever-expanding Soviets.  Not so most leftists, however.

            When the Soviet Union began to crumble from its own weight, three world leaders saw an opportunity to hasten its fall in hopes that the Soviet people might finally see freedom’s light.  All three of these leaders – Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul, and Ronald Reagan – were opposed by the Left.  Thatcher despised socialism.  Pope John Paul, being Polish, knew firsthand about the long arm of the socialist Soviets.  And Ronald Reagan, that cowboy from out west who the Left claimed would get us all blown up, not only ended, but won the Cold War.

            Even though the words, “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall,” were in Reagan’s speech to be delivered at the Berlin Wall, his advisors urged him not to say them.  In Truman-esque and Trumpian style, however, Reagan followed his own gut and the Left cringed.  They also cringed when he called the Soviet Union “the Evil Empire.”

            Today, the Left’s Big Turn is complete.  Today it’s OK to call Russia and Mr. Putin evil, and a citizen or president who doesn’t is “uninformed” and “senseless.”  But what caused the turn?  Is Putin worse than Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, or the Soviet satellite puppets like Castro?  Why was the Left so enamored with their philosophical cousins for 7 decades, only to turn on their present collectivist cousin Putin and call him an enemy?

            If they were consistent, the Left would be praising Putin as they did his socialist, murderous predecessors.  A Russian communist tyrant is a Russian communist tyrant. 

            The cause of the Big Turn is hatred of Donald Trump.  If Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, or John Kasich had been elected president and were sitting with Putin this past week at Helsinki,  taking the same position President Trump took, the Left and its Republican hangers-on would have been praising them for their moderation.

            Absent of Trump, the following words would be the Left’s line: “The U.S. and Russia own the vast majority of the world’s nukes.  An American president must therefore play nice with the Russian leader and always be in dialogue with him.  Failure to engage in détente will move us closer to Cold War II.  It would be foolish not to be friends with Mr. Putin.”

            The Left still won’t acknowledge that in 2016 at least half of the country wanted a new sheriff, even if the new sheriff had a foul mouth.  Strong man politics, not Republican niceness, was what the deplorables had in mind.

            The Left, who formerly never saw a socialist they couldn’t love, is using Putin. Having hypocritically turned from their love of Russian socialism, they disdain Putin merely because he dialogues with a president whom they equally disdain.

            Hysteria reigns in the Leftist camp. By 2020 it will have choked them.

Roger Hines

7/18/18